At one level, I completely agree with you, but on another level I like how strong a role carrier capital ships now have, and I'd prefer to see the other capital ships instead get a comparable role.  That may be a little more challenging than just rolling back the strength of the carriers, but I think it's a goal worth pursuing.  I don't think we need to really rip things up to do this, we just need to carefully put the right buffs and nerfs in the right locations. 

I agree with you here, though I still think something needs to be done here, but I'd definitely keep it very small and subtle.  I'm leaning towards the move speed nerf I talked about earlier.  They'd be just as strong in combat as before, but less capable of pursuing.

I really regard DS as more of a content mod.

yeah the DS Capitals really come into their own in that mod, we even had to nerf them a bit in order to make it more balanced between cruiser/frigate vs caps but our MP games show some great cap usage (the Kol actually causes the enemy issues)

First things first...thank you Darvin, Cykur, and everyone else for your suggestions...this is good and exactly what I'm looking for...

I tried posting something early in reply to Darvin's suggestion about Scramble Bombers, and I couldn't post, so sorry it took so long...

Darvin, I like your idea for Scramble Bombers...under my proposition, higher levels would have allowed for the bombers to be shot down before they were replenished, so I think you definitely bring up a good point of keeping the cooldown time low and constant...

The one issue I have with comparing ADA to Scramble bombers is that to me, they serve different purposes...ADA to me is a constant bonus, while Scramble bombers is more meant to have shock value...it gets you lots of bombers quickly, but once your anti-matter is depleted, your extra bombers are gone...

Jam Weapons, Phasic trap, subverters with their AoE disablement, MPs being good at taking out cap ships, phase stabilizers...all of these things have a general theme, and that is shock value...the Vasari hit you hard and quick with great shock potential, but don't have the staying power of the TEC or Advent fleets...this is what makes the Vasari different and I think Scramble bombers should follow this theme...so, this is why I compare scramble bombers more to anima tempest, because I think both serve the same purpose: shock value...

My previous numbers of 3/4/5 squadrons in the air obviously doesn't fit that theme (I must have got lost in the math, I don't know), and your numbers actually work quite well..

So people don't have to go back a page, Darvin's Scramble Bombers:

Duration of 60s, cooldown of 24s, antimatter cost of 35 across all levels...

This would allow 2.5/5/7.5 squadrons to accumulate at lvl 1/2/3...

I think that 7.5 (9 at some points) might be a little too high given how powerful Vasari bombers are...Vasari bombers have the most HP per individual SC, and these squads are only around for 60s...add in the potential of repair cloud, and honestly I don't think these scambled bombers are ever going to die until the ability duration makes them disappear...

Anima Tempest brings in 8-9 squadrons (if bombers), but they aren't there continuously...ADA brings in up to 3 that are continuous, but they can be shot down and have to be rebuilt the old fashion way...the SC provided by scramble bombers are going to be very difficult to kill given the low duration and cooldown times, so I am iffy on 7.5 accumulated squadrons...

However, your numbers work out very well and are definitely better than the current Scramble bombers...my concern is that 2.5/5/7.5 are going to still be a bit too powerful if the Skirantra can keep them up continuously for most if not all of a battle...therefore, I'm thinking that your numbers should be used, but with the antimatter cost = 45/50/55...

A lvl 5 Skirantra, with no antimatter technology, will have 350 antimatter and regenerate about 29 antimatter per use of Scamble Bombers (every 24s)...that essentially means lvl 3 scamble bombers costs basically 26 antimatter per use (less on higher level Skirantras)... that is more than 13 uses of lvl 3 Scramble Bombers (taking into account antimatter regeneration) before it has to wait for antimatter to regenerate...that is over 5 minutes (323s) of 7.5 extra squadrons, more than anima tempest + ADA lvl 3 when averaged out....even after 5 minutes, its still going to be able to support slightly over 3 squadrons continuously (same as ADA)...and this is just a lvl 5, higher level skirantras are going to keep it up even longer...

A lvl 3 Skirantra with lvl 2 scramble bombers has 300 antimatter and regenerates about 25 antimatter per use of scramble bombers...that is 12 uses of lvl 2 scramble bombers before it has to wait for antimatter to regenerate...

A lvl 1 Skirantra with lvl 1 scramble bombers has 250 antimatter and regenerates about 20 antimatter per use...that is about 12-13 uses of lvl 1 scramble bombers before it has to wait for antimatter to regenerate...

I like Darvins numbers, they are higher than 3/4/5 and allow accumulation faster...but this is more powerful than my original suggestion, so I think antimatter costs need to be higher...

Therefore, using Darvins numbers and my antimatter costs, I am proposing that Scramble bombers lvl 1/2/3 has a duration of 60s, a cooldown of 24s, and an antimatter cost of 45/50/55, allowing 2.5/5/7.5 bombers to accumulate for 12-13 uses, which is about 5 and a half minutes...

 

 

I recognize this; both of them offer the same bonus, but with different purpose.  We can still compare them for what similarities they do have, however.  The fact is that ADA has a certain "shock" value, and my entire point was that scramble needs to have a better shock value.  Until the full cooldown has expired, scramble is strictly inferior.  The only thing I took from that comparison was that the cooldown of scramble needs to be constant or reduced at each level to help that shock value.




Ever seen an enforcer-based fleet with overseers and Skirantras in support?  Vasari do have longevity, it's just people don't use those units.  Occasionally I've pulled it off, and if it wasn't for the exorbitant lab costs it's actually a pretty good rush strategy because of that incredible staying power.

If we can get a buff in to help Vasari's non-phase missile units, this could go mainstream.  I'd love to see a defensive Vasari build as opposed to the current "phase missile grim reaper" we have prowling right now.




You were looking strictly at their theoretical maximum numbers, not the time it takes to build up those numbers.  It's not that you overlooked it, it's that you never considered that metric in particular.



It's a tad stronger than level 2 scramble is right now.  I have the same doubts as you, and I'm just not sure whether I've hit the nail on the head.  It's definitely something that needs extensive testing, because this is a very finicky ability that can be too strong or too weak on a hair trigger.

I was mulling over going for 2/4/6 maximum, which would mean a cooldown of 30 seconds for a duration of 60.  The problem is, I'm just not sure if that would be too weak (especially at level 1).  This ability definitely needs some serious testing, and I don't want to see it over-nerfed.

ADA really hit the nail on the head with its 1.18 buff.  The Halcyon's abilities became perfectly balanced between each other, all of them fulfilling a meaningful role without overshadowing each other.  You can argue the Halcyon became too strong overall, but there's no question its abilities are perfectly in line with each other.  I want to do the same thing with the Skirantra... and ideally every capital ship in the game.



Tinkering with its antimatter cost is definitely the way to fine-tune this ability if we get fairly close.  I'd be of mind to do some iterative testing to find the sweet spot.

Still, 45/50/55 are reasonable numbers.



Keep in mind that this is antimatter that might be used towards other abilities, so the Skirantra (particularly higher level ones) is still losing out and has to do an antimatter trade-off.  

Double post, sorry, I am getting tired of "Forums Go Boom"....

If the Sova is equal to the Halcyon and Skirantra early on (or perhaps more powerful), then buffing embargo isn't going to work, so I say that probably should be scrapped...the lvl 6 ability could be buffed, but I don't think that's the best option for buffing a late game sova...

One thing that could be done is to make higher levels of missile batteries more powerful...instead of making individual missile batteries more powerful, allow more of them to accumulate....higher level sovas would become more useful because their higher antimatter capacity and higher regeneration rates would allow continuous production of missile batteries to go on for longer...and, buffing this ability I think would be the best choice for making successive Sova's almost just as good as the first...

Currently, all levels of missile batters cost 70 antimatter, have a cooldown of 35, and a duration of 180...the only difference between them is that the missile batteries become more powerful...

Since missile batteries aren't mobile, don't have PMs, and can be shot down by anything, I'm not worried about accumulating a lot of them like I would with scramble bombers...

Looking at just cooldown and duration, you can get 5 of these things up at any one time...the problem I see with these is the lack of shock value...35 seconds is just too long, and 5 isn't very many (lvl 3 gives a battery like 21 DPS...five of those is 105 DPS, which is less than 6 HCs)...a lvl x Sova can regenerate 27+3x (approximate equation) antimatter in those 35 seconds...a lvl 5 Sova has 390 antimatter, so it could use missile batteries for over 8 solid minutes if it isn't using embargo...the problem isn't the sova's ability to use missile batteries continuously, but that it can't get out more than 5 at any given time...

My feeling is, allow the ability to accumulate more batteries at a given time...instead of a cooldown of 35, how about 35/30/25?  That makes for 5/6/7 accumulated at a given point in time...in addition, reduce the antimatter cost to keep antimatter consumed per second constant...right now it is 2 antimatter/sec, so make the antimatter costs 70/60/50...

Of the three carriers, I am least experienced with the Sova, and I don't want to make it too overpowered...I'm thinking that improving missile batteries is the best course of action to help higher level Sovas...

I propose that missile batteries have the cooldown changed from 35 to 35/30/25, allowing 5/6/7 batteries to be accumulated at a given point in time instead of just 5...in addition, antimatter cost of 70 will be changed to 70/60/50...

I think that your philosophy on making all three abilities good, comparable choices is a good one...and right now, I'm thinking Heavy SC is a little weak, and might be picked on successive sovas only because embargo doesn't stack...

I propose that Heavy SC be changed from increasing SC armor by 2/3.5/5 to 2/4/6...in addition, damage bonus be increased from 12%/24%/36% to 15%/30%/45%...

I think that, since it only affects a limited amount of SC (most likely no more than 6 squadrons) and TEC SC are already the weakest, this ability will be more powerful, but not too powerful...also, its scaled more for higher level sovas, as lvl 1 gives the same armor and only an extra 3% to physical damage, but by lvl 3, you're looking at an extra point in armor and a full extra 9% to physical damage...

Combining these two buffs, low level sovas are going to be about the same, but higher level sovas are going to be a bit more powerful, and successive sovas will become more useful since the buffed abilities stack (unlike embargo)...

 

I agree with you that the Progenitor is fine as is...

The Akkan I have a problem with...

Its colonize ability is great (the best of the three colonize abilities) and doesn't need any more work...it's the other two abilities I have a problem with...targeting uplink doesn't stack, and there's not much point in having multiple ships with colonize, so successive akkans really only contribute an extra ion bolt and a back up in case the first akkan is destroyed (which is a sad reason to have a 2nd akkan)...

I may consider buffing targeting uplink, but unless the ability is radically changed in its effects, I don't know if much can be done with it...increasing chance to hit I don't think really does all that much, and as far as I know, lvl 3 targeting uplink is good enough to help attack/defend SBs better...and again, this ability doesn't stack...

Therefore, its my feeling that ion bolt needs to be buffed by a fair amount to make successive akkans more useful (and in my opinion its a weak ability in the first place)...it makes sense not to have a whole horde of akkans, but I wouldn't have a problem with 2 or 3 of them actually being a viable strategy...

Currently, ion bolt costs 85 antimatter...its duration is 3/5/7 and its cooldown is 10/12/14...

A lvl x akkan has 225 + 35x antimatter...at lvl 3 ion bolt, a lvl 5 akkan is going to regenerate 17.5 antimatter per use of ion bolt...that means ion bolt lvl 3 essentially costs 67.5 antimatter per use...with its 400 antimatter, a lvl 5 akkan is going to be able to use ion bolt about 6 times (with a delay on the sixth shot)...that is probably more than enough to kill any capital ship trying to escape, but odds are, you're only going to be able to take out one...this ability is only useful when a high priority target is trying to escape...during combat, even with lvl 3 ion bolt you're only going to be able to disable a ship of your choosing for half of 84 seconds, which is simply not good enough...that ship is going to still be able to squeeze out its abilities, and if the enemy tries to flee, you might not have enough antimatter to prevent an enemy cap from retreating in time...

With level 1 or 2 ion bolt, the situation is even worse...to the point where I'd say its a pitiful ability until lvl 3...

Now, if you add in TEC antimatter regeneration bonus due to culture, suddenly this ability is going to be used more often and lvl 3 serves its purpose extremely well...but even still, lvl 1 and 2 are rather weak, and on offensive actions this ability is not only pretty worthless, but you likely won't have friendly culture...

I'd like to see two changes to ion bolt...one, make lvl 1 and 2 more useful while keeping lvl 3 about the same....two, make this ability much useful during combat, not just when the enemy is fleeing...the tricky part is making this ability more useful during combat but not any better at trapping enemy caps while they are trying to flee...

As for the Jarrasul, I agree that only its colonize ability needs to be buffed...

I'm tired and its late, so I will think about ion bolt and the jarrasul's colonize ability later...nevertheless, I'm open to suggestions....

 

 

I agree that the other capital ships need a buff, but I think that the division here is those that like carriers versus those that dislike them. Privately, I feel that capital ships need a boost and that everything else is fine as is.

However, I think that the Vasari position is fine relative to the other sides. I remember when the Advent used to pawn and the Vasari needed help compared to them. I think that the current situation is closer to a real balance. Somehow, I suspect that this is going to be as close to balance as we're going to get.

The only problem I have with buffing the Sova through the TEC tree is that it would be the only ship in the game to be buffed as such...using technologies already in the game (your idea with the gauss upgrades like meson bolt and rocket burst is good) might work, but it doesn't reward you for having a high level sova...it rewards you for having a high level sova and researching one or two techs...

A lvl 5 Sova is only going to have one lvl 3 ability at most (and likely it'll be embargo), so its not truly high level...

Once you get to lvl 6, you have access to a very powerful ability...not the greatest for direct combat bonuses, but the industrial boost is very nice (allows a kodiak in 7 seconds, that's pretty impressive)...by this point, when we're looking to buff the later levels, you already have a solid ultimate ability, and embargo lvl 3 is great...

Higher level Sovas will have at least 2 lvl 3 abilities...I think missile batteries and Heavy SC only need a slight boost, and one that favors the higher levels a tad more....it doesn't make the Sova the true support ship that the Halcyon and Skirantra are, but then again, the Sova never was given support abilities to start with...it simply is not a true support ship, it is a direct combat ship (missile batteries/heavy SC) and economic weapon (embargo/rapid manufacturing)...I think it fits the TEC well, and just needs a little late game boosting...

A sova may not end up being as good of a late game choice as a halcyon or skirantra, but it is just as good of a choice early game (with a nerfed skirantra, at least) and this is what is most important because the early game is so crucial...by the late game, if the sova is a little weaker than the halcyon and skirantra but the TEC makes up for it with a different cap ship, then I think all will be fine...

The ships can't be perfectly balanced, but they can be close, and most importantly the carriers and colonizers need to be equal in the early game...late game, what's important is that each faction's capital ships balance as a whole with the other two factions...

Right now I'm thinking I'm going to go with the buff to missile batteries (accumulate 5/6/7) and heavy SC (15%/30%/45%)...it won't affect the sova's early performance, and will only make higher level sovas more powerful...if it just doesn't seem to be enough, I will definitely consider the tech upgrades for the missile batteries...that is a creative idea and if implemented properly would work out real well...my feeling is, rocket burst and meson bolt could be too powerful if 5 batteries were allowed to accumulate, so something else would have to be changed then...

Reducing the planet bombing of carriers is actually not a bad idea, given how powerful they are for rushing...I was thinking that, once the caps are all balanced (by which 13 of them are buffed), it might be best to reduce the bombardment DPS of all caps save the planet bombers....this would indirectly make revelations and vulkorases more useful (Marza's too, but they are useful enough)...

As for the akkan...you bring up good points about its interrupt ability...I've always felt that lvl 3 and 2 were a big step above lvl 1, though the difference between the cooldown and duration is 7s for all three levels...so a ship's ability to escape really doesn't change if its in position to jump...

I feel like something needs to be done with ion bolt to make it just a little bit more powerful, but I'm not sure where...I originally was thinking lvl 1 and 2 needed a buff, but now I'm not certain, perhaps its lvl 2 and 3 that need a boost...dealing some damage (like EMP) would make it more powerful, but I feel that would be changing the intent of the ability instead of refining and balancing it...

As for the Jarrasul's colonize ability...

The Vasari have a theme with speed when it comes to developing a planet...they have technology to speed up population growth, and one to speed up construction rates (which the Jarrasul already does)...they also have technology to reduce the credit cost of (IIRC) all purchases...

I have 3 ideas with the Jarrasul's colonize ability...

1) Increase the production speed of planet upgrades

2) Increase the population growth of the planet

3) Decrease the cost of orbital structures

From a conceptual level, #2 makes the most sense (the evacuator has what, 15,000 people on it?)...but there is a technology to already do this...I also don't know if the economic boost would be that significant unless the growth rate was ridiculous, and even then, it would very much be tied to the type of planet being colonized....

#1 is okay, but its too much like the current colonize ability...it simply doesn't provide a solid, tangible economic boost (aside from underdevelopment not lasting quite as long)

I am most in favor of #3...depending on how much of a cost decrease there is, it could be in conjunction with the current construction speed bonus or could replace the current speed bonus...

With each level of the akkan's colonize, you get a free extractor....that's 250 credits right there....

At level 1, you get 1 extractor (250) and you get it instantly...so, that is at least 36 extra seconds you are getting that extractors resources (.46*36=16.56... convert to credits (2.5:1) and thats 41.3)...so just with the extra extractors, akkan's colonize 1/2/3 is essentially worth 291/624/998 credits...add on the extraction bonuses of 33%/66%/100% that last for 6 minutes and that is 138 extra credits per level per extractor...

There is some variance with how quickly your constructors can move and start building extractors as well as how many roids are at the planet, but a very rough estimate puts colonize 1/2/3 at about 705/1452/2240 (assumes 3 roids, and that all are instantly built)...this is an overestimate, but it also doesn't take into account the value of time (you can work on turrets or factories or whatever sooner)...

As for the progenitor, you get a 15%/30%/45% cost reduction on planet upgrades for 360/480/600 seconds...

In that time period, lets say you build on average two civilian upgrades and two logistics upgrade...those would normally cost 2000-650-430 or (2.5:1 conversion ratio) or 4700 credits...

Therefore, on average colonize 1/2/3 would save you 705/1410/2115...again, probably an overestimate (obviously asteroids cost less and 2 logistic upgrades may be pushing it)...these numbers are fairly comparable to the akkan, so I think that the Jarrasul's ability needs to be comparable to both of these colonize abilities...

Right now all three colonize abilities last at least 6 minutes...progenitors lvl 3 last 10 and the jarrasuls always lasts 12...

Lets stick with the current 720s duration for the jarrasul, and work on reducing the cost of structures...

What would you build in 720s?  Probably a lot...let's go with 3 extractors, a frigate factory, 2 trade ports, and 2 repair bays...the total cost for all of those things is 3650-480-480 or (2.5:1 conversion ratio) 6050 credits...

If the Jarrasul's colonize ability reduced construction costs by 12%/24%/36%, that would save you 726/1452/2178 credits...this is comparable economically to the other two colonize abilities, yet I think is different enough...if this were done, then I don't think the Jarrasul should increase the construction speed...

I'm going to need some help here, because I don't have the experience that some of you do...my estimates for how much you will build in 12 minutes etc etc might be off, in which case the percentages for the jarrasul's ability would be off as well...

Right now, I'm thinking it should be 12%/24%/36% for 720s...however, depending in which direction my estimates are off, 10%/20%/30% or 15%/30%/45% may be more appropriate...

As for Missile batteries...

What about putting cluster warheads (the LRMs ability) on the missile batteries?  Not as powerful as meson bolt or rocket burst, but its something...

In fact, the entity file of cluster warheads could be copied and renamed to make a new ability that would just be put on missile batteries...this way, it wouldn't be tied to the tech tree (which I'm sketchy on)...

The advantage of cluster warheads (or a similar splash damage ability) is that it scales as the game progresses...as fleets get bigger and bigger, splash damage and AoE abilities become exponentially more powerful...

I think a splash damage like effect on these things could give them the late game power they need....

 

I looked at the three colonize abilities again...

This time I was more precise and I did multiple situations....

Let's assume you are colonizing both the asteroid and the ice/volcanic by your HW (allegiance=90%)...let's also assume that one has 2 asteroids while the other has 3 asteroids...this isn't perfect, since the average asteroid count is just under three and the second planet your cap colonizes probably is two, not one jump away from your HW, but this is close enough...

With some more precise math, the Akkan's colonize 1/2/3 will net you 703/1623/2703 on a planet with 3 asteroids and 618/1415/1661 on a planet with only 2 asteroids...this assumes that on average it takes a constructor 20s to get to the first asteroid, then 20 to the next one and so on...

Let's assume that on the asteroid, you build 1 civilian upgrade and 1 logistics upgrade...on the ice/volcanic, let's assume you build 2 civilian upgrades and 1 logistics upgrade...with a Progenitor, its colonize 1/2/3 will net you 499/998/1497 on the ice/volcanic and 304/608/912 on the asteroid...

There are a lot of variables to consider, so this won't be perfect, but lets assume on average the Akkan is colonizing something with 3 asteroids...lets also assume, on average, the Progenitor is colonizing a planet (colony ships are more likely to be used on asteroids due to the smaller militia)...

The Akkan is netting about 700/1600/2700 and the Progenitor is netting about 500/1000/1500...

My feeling is, of the colonizing caps, the Progenitor is the most powerful combat-wise while the Akkan is the least combat oriented, with the Jarrasul somewhere in the middle...

As for their colonize ability, the akkan has the best...it seems fair that, if you have the best colonize ability you should be the worst combat ship of the three...like-wise, if the Progenitor is the best combat-wise, then its only fair that its colonize ability is the weakest...

So, my goal is to put the Jarrasul's colonize ability somewhere between the Akkan's and the Progenitor's...I'm going to shoot for its colonize 1/2/3 to net 600/1300/2100...

What will, on average, be built at a planet in 12 minutes (720s)?  My guess is 3 extractors, 1 lab, 1 factory, 1 trade module, and 2 repair bays...now, this is very debatable, but I think this setup is close...a frontline planet may have 2 factories and no labs...a core world might have no factory and 2 labs...you may build 3 or 4 repair bays, you may build none...also, you might build turrets to clean up militia (likely 1,2, or 3)...these setups are different, but 1 lab is about the same cost as a factory and 2 repair bays is close to the cost of 3 turrets...bottom line, I think most setups are going to cost more or less the same...

The setup I have chosen costs about 5838 credits....to net 600/1300/2100, we'd need cost reductions of 11%/22%/36%...

Therefore, I am going to stay with my proposal of changing the Jarrasul's colonize ability to reduce the costs of orbital structures...the reductions will be 12%/24%/36% and the duration will remain 720s...

Unless the concept of reducing structure costs comes out to be a really bad idea or my estimates are really poor, I think I'm going to stay with these numbers...

 

Update on changes made...since this thread is getting long...

Skirantra:

Scramble Bombers 1/2/3 releases 1/2/3 bomber squadrons per use

Duration = 60s

Cooldown = 24s

Antimatter cost = 45/50/55

Sova:

Heavy Strikecraft increases the armor and damage output of the host’s strikecraft

Armor increase = 2/4/6

Physical damage increase = 15%/30%/45%

Missile Batteries instantly constructs a missile platform

Cooldown = 35/30/25

This should fix scramble bombers and make it reasonable...not OP, and not too nerfed...

After comparing Heavy SC to ADA, I think these new numbers (up from 2/3.5/5 armor and 12%/24%/36%) will make it a bit more competitive while not too powerful early on...the new cooldown on missile batteries (used to be 35 at all levels) will allow 5/6/7 to accumulate instead of just 5, but the antimatter cost will not be changed...higher level sovas will have more antimatter and faster regeneration so I really don't think reducing the antimatter cost is a good idea...

The Halcyon and Progenitor I think are fine as is...I'm also leaning towards not changing the Akkan either...targeting uplink or ion bolt could see some improvement, but both have their uses and I don't think there is a good way to buff them without overpowering them or radically changing them...even later when colonize isn't important, the other two abilities still are very useful, enough to always have at least one akkan around...

The current issue is the Jarrasul...I'm having a hard time reducing structure costs with it since the tags that do this are not "entity" but "research"...so, if this problem can't be solved then I'm just going to work with the ability as is...most likely, the structure speed will be change from 20% to either 50% or 100% (which either one doubles construction speed, can't remember if the bonus increases construction speed or reduces time needed)...each level of colonize would extend how long the bonus lasts...

With the Jarrasul being the only one unfinished, I am moving onto the three battleships, the Kortul, Kol, and Radiance...I'm going to study the abilities some, and then report back with propositions...obviously the Kortul is going to need the least work, while the Kol is going to need the most...preliminary thoughts are to buff disruptive strikes, reduce antimatter costs on the kol abilities, and buff energy absorption/animosity on the radiance...